I went back, armed with both versions of the picture, and explained that I would like the one picture printed the same as the other (i.e., burn the photo paper for the same amount of time), so that the stars would be visible. The young man I was speaking to did not understand me. I had prefaced with "The only difference between these two pictures is that I used the flash in one of them. However, the exposure lengths and aperture settings are identical." About 10-20 minutes into this conversation, he finally got that part, "That's the difference!" he exclaimed, "you used a flash!"

I hoped it would not be too much more difficult from there, but he proved me wrong again. He argued that I wouldn't want it "darker", because (and I quote), "then you wouldn't be able to see the trees." I tried to calmly explain that I didn't want to see the trees; if I had, I would have used the flash again--or, better yet, taken the picture during the DAYTIME!. We kept going around in circles, until I finally got through to him. After a half hour of explaining myself he said, "But then all you'd see is the dots." The dots, he said! I responded, "That's all I want to see. Those 'dots' are called 'stars'." And he finally (reluctantly) accommodated me.

I henceforth offer a tip to all those astrophotographers out there without access to a dark room--pay the extra cost for one-hour service, for then you can speak to the very person who will be processing the film. If you get someone like this young man, just leave and come back later. ;)